From Darryl W. Perry President 2016:
By now you’ve probably heard that Rand Paul has announced an end to his Presidential campaign. On the morning of February 3, he reportedly issued a statement reading, in part:
“It’s been an incredible honor to run a principled campaign for the White House. Today, I will end where I began, ready and willing to fight for the cause of Liberty.”
There is now only one candidate who is consistently promoting the ideas of liberty on every issue, every time. There is only one candidate willing to say “no person or group has more rights than any other person or group. No person can delegate a right they don’t possess to another person, and no group can claim a right not possessed by any member of the group. Since no group of people can have more rights than any individual member of the group, no group can revoke the rights of any other person or group. Therefore, any law, regulation, statute, or other dictate can not rightly infringe on the rights of any person.”
Individual rights include the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Which means that “it should be legal for anyone to do anything he wants, provided only that he not initiate (or threaten) violence against the person or legitimately owned property of another.” This includes to right to buy, sell, manufacture, possess, and/or consume any product or service that does not cause unjust harm to another person.
If you were supporting the Rand Paul campaign and are now looking for a libertarian candidate to support, then I invite you to look into my platform, and make a donation to help me run the most libertarian presidential campaign in history, to promote the ideas of liberty as boldly and as often as possible, and to give as many people as possible the chance to vote for an actual libertarian in November 2016!
Moses, the topic of abortion was covered in the comments for The Libertarian Zone article. Click the link and scroll down.
Their idea about secession sounds somewhat similar to my Libertarian Zone concept, however, they do not appear to have a real plan for a defense mechanism to keep non-libertarians out, which is a major impediment to achieving and preserving a free society.
My Libertarian Zone concept solves this problem in what I’d consider to be a decentralized manner. The Libertarian Zone concept has been online for a while now, and so far, nobody has been able to poke any holes in it.
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2014/07/andy-jacobs-the-libertarian-zone/
The New Hampshire Liberty Party was founded by Darryl W. Perry and Ian Freeman (of Free Talk Live fame). The reason that they formed the party was because they wanted a party that was explicitly pro-secession, as in they wanted to push for New Hampshire to secede from the union. I don’t think that they have any real differences with the Libertarian Party, beyond the fact that they are only in New Hampshire, and that they wanted a party that explicitly advocated for secession.
I am not sure how many people are members of this party, but it is likely not very many outside of Darryl W. Perry and Ian Freeman. This party has never had party status in New Hampshire, and I am not sure if their party label has ever even appeared next to a candidate’s name on the ballot, although I know that Darryl and Ian have both run for local offices in Keene since having formed this party.
Here is a link to the New Hampshire Liberty Party’s website:
http://nh-liberty.info/
Here is their platform plank on secession:
“Plank 0: Declaring Independence for NH and Personally
NH Liberty Party members support immediate secession from the organization known as ‘the United States’. Politically, the organization known as ‘The State of New Hampshire” should declare independence from US rule and open its borders to all peaceful people wishing to make a better life for themselves and escape worldwide oppression. Personally, NH Liberty Party members support individuals declaring independence from the same ‘United States” and any other aggressive organizations regardless if they call themselves a ‘state’, ‘city’, ‘town’, etc.”
Actually I may be partially wrong about that, I think they may have had local ballot access somewhere in NH. But even if so that would not give them a line to cross-endorse or run a presidential candidate.
The NH Liberty Party does not aspire to become a party in any other state, and thus it would not be logical for them to run presidential candidates. I don’t believe they have the resources to get ballot access in New Hampshire, either. So they are really more of a public pressure/opinion group than an electoral party, at least at this stage. To the extent that Darryl wants to continue to spread his message to other states through a campaign for office vehicle it makes sense to do so with the Libertarian Party; the NH Liberty Party has very little if anything to do with that.
Since I have been involved with the LP (96′-14′) the core complaints had always been against the two major parties is that they expected puppets as their nominees: the means justified the end.
Darryl goes rogue at times and does his own thing. I accept people by their actions and not their speech.
The thing I fail to comprehend about Darryl running for the LP nomination is that he formed a new party in New Hampshire with a few others from Keene which is another form of the Boston Tea Party.
Since he started that party I can’t trust someone with allegiance to two, although similar, entities. There is no logical reason for him to run on one party when he started his own party in New Hampshire.
“Anyone supporting Perry should look at his ‘public record’ of activity within the party. You will change your mind about him very quickly.”
Doing so didn’t seem to change anyone’s minds about Johnson or Barr, why would it change anyone’s mind about Perry?
“It was an asshole move, plain and simple.”
Agreed. And this is just one of the reasons he cannot be trusted to be our nominee. Anyone supporting Perry should look at his “public record” of activity within the party. You will change your mind about him very quickly.
Andy wrote:
If you put the libertarian movement above the Libertarian Party and feel that the LP is drifting, then step back from the LP and work on other things (or — better yet — work within the LP to fix it). I have no objection to his joining and getting active in the Boston Tea Party.
The problem is he scammed his way into a speaking slot so he could address all the delegates, then he disrespected the party that gave him that speaking opportunity by telling them all to join a competitor. He said he wanted to run for chair, but clearly had no intention of running for chair. He just was looking for a trick to be handed a microphone and the undivided attention of the delegates.
Not only that, he also plugged another chair candidate who had already been given a set amount of time for nomination speeches equal to all the others, thus giving that candidate extra time to the detriment of the others who followed the rules.
It was an asshole move, plain and simple.
Chuck, I was also at that 2010 LP National Convention in Saint Louis, and I remember when Perry did that, and I agree that it was not really the most appropriate thing to do, but I bet the reason Perry did it was because he believed that the Libertarian Party was drifting in the wrong direction, having nominated the presidential ticket of Bob Barr / Wayne Root at the previous convention, and being that Wayne Root was one of the leading candidates for National Chairman at that convention.
I get the impression that Darryl’s first priority is the cause of liberty, and that the Libertarian Party takes a backseat to this.
I agree to this, in that principle is more important than a political party. Political parties can be corrupted. If the Libertarian Party does not stick to its principles then it could end up being no better than the Democratic and Republican parties.
Matt Cholko said: “Plus, the candidate can’t pitch the SuperPAC in his speeches, or what have you. ”
A regular PAC could also be started, as in a PAC that is not a Super PAC.
I forgot about that incident, Chuck.
As for the SuperPAC idea, it does not solve the problem of crypto-currencies only. The fact of that matter is many people will not donate to a SuperPAC. They’ll be at the campaign website, trying to donate, and finding it unduly difficult to do. Relatively few of those people will then seek out an alternative way to financially support the campaign. Plus, the candidate can’t pitch the SuperPAC in his speeches, or what have you.
As Paulie touched on earlier, it takes work to get a PAC going. I’m happy to work on behalf of campaigns. But, I’m not happy to do the basic shit that the campaign should be doing, such as soliciting and accepting donations in United States currency, figuring out how to spend those donations, and reporting all of that to the FEC.
Yes, the FEC sucks. And, yes, I support civil disobedience, in general, as a means of protest. But, those two facts do not make Perry’s policy a good one. Its not.
Chuck Moulton wrote:
Chuck Moulton wrote:
My recollection was wrong about the chair election being on C-SPAN. I think I was confusing this with 2008. Also Perry’s speech was in fact pretty short. Apologies… it was almost 6 years ago and my memory failed me.
The fact remains that it was completely inappropriate and offensive to those of us who respect the bylaws and want to grow the LP.
From the minutes (page 48):
https://www.lp.org/files/2010%20National%20Convention.pdf
Here is Perry’s speech (1:12:25 – 1:13:25):
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/7336138#to01:12:25
Here is a transcript:
Chuck,
That’s a fair point. And since I don’t recall whether or not I ever addressed the matter publicly as the founder of the BTP, I guess now’s as good a time as any.
I was one of the people groaning and shaking my head when Darryl did that. I thought it was … well, a very bad idea and a very rude and inappropriate thing to do.
On the other hand, keep the context in mind.
I founded the BTP in 2006 as a place for libertarians to go after the Portland Massacre. And as I’ve repeatedly pointed out since then, I did so specifically because I wanted a place for libertarians to go from which they might return to the LP at some point in the future (I still am not going to divulge details, but at the time I had a credible belief that someone else was planning to form a similar organization, and that that someone and that organization would become a permanent anti-LP cult).
Pursuant to that, at the BTP’s first national convention, I proposed a bylaws amendment to dissolve the BTP as a political party and reconstitute it as an internal LP caucus. That amendment failed.
In 2008, I strongly suggested early on that the BTP consider endorsing the LP’s presidential ticket instead of running its own. Then the LP nominated Barr-Root and that idea went out the window.
In 2010, at the time Darryl spoke, it looked like the LP was set to prove it still hadn’t learned anything by electing Root as national chair.
In truth, Darryl jumped the gun on me by maybe two hours. If Root had been elected chair, I would have shaken its dust from my feet and publicly encouraged everyone I knew to do the same thing, whether it was in favor of the BTP or something else.
But I do agree that he jumped the gun, and that it looked bad, and that it was unprofessional, and that in any event it turned out to be unnecessary because the national convention delegates for once managed to extract crania from recta for 15 minutes and shoot Root down.
So yeah, I feel ya.
Note that I have no problem with the BTP per se. The issue is Perry misusing our election process to promote a competitor. I’d be just as angry if Rand Paul sought our presidential nomination and encouraged everyone to leave the LP and join the Republican Party during his nomination speech.
Don’t hold back, Chuck. Tell us how you REALLY feel.
Even if Perry didn’t have a ridiculous, crippling donation policy and even if Perry didn’t have an underwhelming resume and poor stage presence, I still wouldn’t support him.
At the 2010 Libertarian National Convention Darryl Perry waited until the last minute to enter the national chair’s race, then used his microphone time during his nomination speech (in front of C-SPAN television cameras) to rant for 5 minutes that everyone should leave the Libertarian Party and join the Boston Tea Party. Everyone was groaning, searching for a giant hook to forcibly remove him from the stage. It was incredibly rude, unprofessional, and embarrassing. It showed he has zero loyalty to the Libertarian Party and wants power for himself rather than incremental success for the LP (he was chair of the BTP at the time). Based on that ridiculousness I will never support Perry for any race at any level, PERIOD. He wouldn’t get my vote for dog catcher.
Correct. But I do think it’s a serious problem for his campaign if it ever starts to take off. I very much admire his bravery but I hope he does not end up in prison. Ironically, what may save him from legal trouble and possibly living in a cage may be the lack of traction his campaign is experiencing.
I also see a lot of positives in it too.
I agree that it would, but even if those were my only concerns it does not mean I would have the time to research the process to set up a superpac, go through that process, and make it a priority over other projects. Speaking of which, I am spending too much time on IPR again today, and I can’t keep doing that.
Paulie,
Unless I’m mis-remembering, you’re not one of those who respond to every reference to Perry with “accepts Bitcoin, doesn’t report to FEC, that makes him a poor candidate, buh-bye.” As you say, you actually have other concerns with him, e.g. resume and stage presence and whatnot. Whether or not I agree with those concerns, they’re reasonable concerns.
For that matter, the concern over his campaign finance positions is also reasonable. I was just pointing out that where THOSE concerns come in, there’s an available fix. If your ONLY problem with Darryl was that you didn’t think he could raise sufficient money his way, or that he might not spend money the way you would like, a Super PAC would take care of that problem.
I think he has a great platform and I am not a big fan of his campaign finance plan. I agree with him regarding campaign disclosure laws and minimum wage laws, and I believe in civil disobedience more generally, but I think choosing those particular issues to commit civil disobedience over just helps reinforce an inaccurate stereotype of libertarians as rich people who don’t care about the poor and want to use their ill gotten wealth to subvert the political process surreptitiously, none of which is even close to being the case, but that’s the picture we help paint if those are the issues we commit civil disobedience over. I like Darryl personally but he is not a “great candidate” in terms of resume or stage presence. Nevertheless, I am glad he is putting real hardcore libertarian views out there as a presidential candidate. If I had a lot of time and energy to learn how to set up a superpac and to go through the work of setting one up along the terms you describe I’d do it. As it is I have a lot of other priorities, but I think it’s a good idea.
I agree.
Andy,
That’s a good point. My recollection is that once the nomination has been conferred, the presidential campaign is usually asked/expected to come up with some money to help the party finish its ballot access work for that election cycle.
If I was Darryl (which of course I am not) and if I expected to be and/or was the nominee, and if I had his campaign fundraising modus operandi, I would fulfill that expectation by using my campaign communications to ask my prospective donors to match their Bitcoin/gold donations to ME with an FRN donation to the LNC’s ballot access operations. “Send me $5 worth of Bitcoin, Paypal $5 to LPHQ” or whatever. In fact, I think it would be cool to see him doing that NOW, whether he expects to be the nominee or not. Seeing candidates support the party whether they expect to get anything out of it or not is something that appeals to me.
But a little more in support of my main point:
I’ve been in or around the LP for five presidential campaigns now. In four of those five campaigns (Browne ’96, Brown ’00, Barr ’08 and Johnson ’12), significant concerns and questions have been brought up about the way the campaigns spend money (and while Badnarik’s 2004 presidential campaign seems to have had relatively little if any controversy on that count, his 2006 congressional campaign was a disaster of epic proportions when it came to “you raised lots of money and fucked it all away” allegations).
Well, hey: If you don’t think the presidential campaigns do a very good job of spending the money they raise — and frankly you would seem to be correct in thinking that way — you’ve got the option of TAKING CONTROL of that spending by setting up a Super PAC that spends money the way YOU think it should be spent instead, and convincing people to donate to your Super PAC in addition to, or even instead of, the presidential campaign committee. You don’t need the candidate’s support or permission. In fact, it’s against the law for you to “coordinate” with the candidate, which asking for support or permission would seem to qualify as.
So once again, if you’re one of the people who claims to 1) think Darryl’s a great candidate with a great platform but to also 2) think his campaign finance plan sucks … why not start the Citizens For Perry Super PAC and do things your way?
Tom, Super PACs are apparently prohibited from paying for ballot access drives, but of course a regular PAC could be set up for this, and the LNC and some of the state parties historically pick up most of the ballot access expenses.
For anyone who supports Perry’s platform but doesn’t like his campaign finance plan, the solution is simple.
There’s nothing at all to stop you from setting up a Super PAC to raise the money you think needs to be raised and spend it on the things that you think need to be done to promote his candidacy.
Let’s be realistic here: Even the most big-spending candidate for the LP’s presidential nomination only blows through a few tens of thousands of dollars getting the nomination.
In that respect, Darryl is probably not significantly handicapped, given that so far as I know nly one LP candidate (other than Johnson, who is $1.x million in the hole) who has raised/spent the $5k that triggers reporting requirements. That candidate is Petersen, and he wasn’t much past that $5k mark with his first report.
AFTER the nomination, if he was the nominee, I suspect that Darryl would be able to raise the money to do the travel he needed to do — and hey, if a Super PAC independently raised and spent the money to do things like run television commercials, good for them.
All of us have opinions on how presidential campaigns should be run. The Super PAC possibility means that any of us who are willing to make the effort can make those opinions real, without having to convince the candidate (in fact, convincing the candidate is specifically NOT allowed!).
I donated to Perry’s campaign.
I have given to Kerbel, Perry, and Johnson.
Anyone but Petersen.
Not accepting fiat currency donations isn’t how I would go about it if I were running, but in some ways Darryl may be doing the movement a favor by reminding us of one of the lessons of the Ron Paul campaigns: Money spent independently at the grassroots level can do more to help a presidential candidate than money donated to the official campaign.
While I’m sure Darryl is and will be running a far, far leaner ship than Dr. Paul ran, there’s also little reason to think he’ll be getting press based on how much cash his official campaign raises (which was the main reason to donate to Ron Paul as far as I was concerned).
And given Darryl’s position vis-a-vis the FEC, lots of alt-currency donations could even get him in hot water (not that I see this as any danger unless he wins the LP nomination). So it’s good to keep in mind that we can produce and give away or resell our own campaign materials for Darryl, buy ads for him, etc., without his involvement.
As Ron Paul himself noted, the lack of consistent “branding” in his campaigns didn’t seem to hurt him.
Let a thousand flowers bloom!
It really is a shame that he has this ridiculous donation policy. His positions are great. But, purposely making it difficult for people to donate to your campaign is a sure fire way not to get much support. Its a deal breaker for me.
Well… there is that, too!
Regardless of the “no fiat money” thing (which I agree is a bad idea), I just don’t think Rand Paul supporters are a likely source of support for Perry. Anyone who thinks Rand is radical enough is likely to think Perry is too radical.
Yes this is foolish. By refusing to accept regular dollars, he’s essentially imposed a campaign finance limit against himself.
Nice try but how can anyone contribute if they want to use (Oh God…) regular evil old federal reserve note dollars? I sure hope the LP can do better than this.